DOCSLIB.ORG

Qantas Group, Virgin Blue, Regional Aviation Association of Australia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Qantas Group, Virgin Blue, Regional Aviation Association of Australia PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION INQUIRY INTO THE ECONOMIC REGULATION OF AIRPORT SERVICES SUBMISSION MADE BY MEMBERS OF THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY 21 April 2011 Introduction and purpose of joint submission This joint submission to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into the economic regulation of airport services is made on behalf of the following airlines and airline representative bodies: • the Qantas Group; • Virgin Blue Airlines; • the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA); and • the Board of Airline Representatives Australia (BARA) (together, – the Airline Industry). A full list of parties that are represented by RAAA and BARA is attached. Each party to this submission has provided its own individual submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry. This joint submission presents to the Productivity Commission the Airline Industry’s shared view that: • airports have market power and the ability and incentive to exercise that power; • as a result, there is an imbalance of bargaining power between airlines and airports, making commercial negotiations difficult; and • there is evidence of excessive pricing and inconsistent application of service standards by airports. Implementing appropriate economic regulation of airports is central to addressing these issues. The purpose of this joint submission is to present to the Productivity Commission a shared position on how the current regulatory regime should be enhanced in order to better facilitate constructive engagement and agreed commercial outcomes between airports and airlines. The Airline Industry remains committed to a process of constructive engagement between airports and airport users in Australia. While we support improvements to the current regime, there is no interest in re-regulating airport services and pricing, by introducing a requirement for regulatory approval of all changes to pricing. Such re- regulation would only increase costs for all parties and lead to inefficient outcomes. Since the introduction of light handed monitoring there has been progress with certain airports towards a more appropriate commercial negotiating approach. Notwithstanding this progress, the Airline Industry view is that the current regulatory framework does not strike the appropriate balance between providing incentives for airports to invest in airport infrastructure and ensuring that mechanisms are in place to prevent airports’ unreasonable behaviour and excessive pricing of facilities and services. Airports are expected to invest significantly in major airport infrastructure over the next ten years. The impact on airlines of current inefficiencies and inequities in the 1 development, delivery and pricing of infrastructure is likely to be exacerbated unless the current regulatory regime is improved to more effectively address these concerns. This is particularly pertinent given the impact of external factors, such as continued high oil prices and natural disasters, on the aviation industry. Airports have substantial market power Airports are natural monopolies with substantial barriers to market entry, large sunk costs and strong economies of scale. Due largely to geography, in Australia, unlike other countries, there is very limited competition from secondary airports or other modes of transportation. As the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has most recently recognised in its 2009-10 Airport Monitoring Report, ‘The price-monitored airports have significant market power and the ACCC considers that the airports have the incentives and ability to exercise their market power.’1 The current light handed monitoring approach to regulation has been ineffective in preventing the operators of major airports from exerting significant market power in the provision and pricing of airport facilities and services. In the experience of the Airline Industry, the non-monitored capital city and larger regional airports also have significant market power and exhibit behaviours that are not consistent with those of service providers operating in a competitive environment. While the Government’s Aeronautical Pricing Principles were intended to serve as a guide for the pricing of aeronautical services at airports, in the Airline Industry’s experience, both monitored and non-monitored airports often engage in pricing which is inconsistent with these Principles. The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) demonstrated that airports and airlines have asymmetric risk profiles and that airports exercised significant market power in transferring risk to airlines during a particularly turbulent global economic period. Australian airports derived significant benefit when airlines discounted airfares to stimulate passenger demand; passenger volumes increased driving an increase in airport yield. This is evidence of the market distortion whereby airports do not share downside risk and enjoy upside benefits in their entirety, given no mechanism exists for airlines to share these upside benefits. A comparison of airline earnings to airport earnings during the GFC clearly illustrates this point. Airlines generally have very limited countervailing power in negotiating the terms and conditions of access to airports. Airports are aware that any threat to withdraw services is not credible or viable, due to the considerable competition that exists between airlines. This view has been supported by both Productivity Commission and the ACCC. There is strong evidence of excessive pricing and inconsistent application of service standards Across a range of airports, charges for aeronautical services (and other services not currently classified as aeronautical) have been rapidly increasing over the last decade, to the point where they are now significantly above the long run costs of providing these services. 1 ACCC 2009-10 Airport Monitoring Report, January 2011, p x. 2 The Airline Industry believes that airports exhibit unreasonable behaviour and excessive pricing in relation to: • Airport profitability being achieved at the expense of airline profitability (as particularly evidenced during the GFC); • Negotiating commercial leases; • Inefficient airport investment decisions; • Inequitable pricing of aeronautical assets; • Excess returns from aeronautical assets; • Inconsistency in use of the regulatory modelling process across airports; • Application of ‘line in the sand’ valuations; and • Staff car-parking services. Evidence of these airport behaviours is provided in the individual submissions of the Airline Industry to the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry. There is no consistent ability for airport users to seek the maintenance of or improvements to services. Similarly, there is no ability for airport users to demand reduced prices where services or facilities are not performing to the required standards. As a result, the cost of travel is higher than would be the case in a competitive market. This has a significant economic and welfare impact on passengers and on the broader economy, as well as airlines. In the Airline Industry’s view, the current regulatory regime should be improved to address the impacts on airlines and, undoubtedly, on passenger welfare. Enhancement of the regulatory regime will facilitate constructive engagement and agreed commercial outcomes between airports and airlines The preferred approach of the Airline Industry is to engage in bilateral commercial negotiations with airports to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. However, the current regime does not facilitate truly commercial negotiations between airlines and airports due to the inequitable bargaining position airlines experience as a result of airports’ substantial market power. The principles that should be encompassed in an enhanced regulatory regime are described below and specific mechanisms to address them are explored further in the Airline Industry’s individual submissions. The key features of an improved regulatory regime should include: i. Commercial negotiations as the key method to determine the terms and conditions on which airport services are provided. ii. A set of guidelines that address the key issues raised in negotiations between airlines and airports over the provision of aeronautical services. These guidelines should address issues such as pricing, transparency of information, the negotiation process, investment in airport infrastructure, and the measurement and allocation of costs and efficiencies. These guidelines would assist commercial negotiations and reduce the need for arbitration. In the event of arbitration, they could also be used to guide the arbitrator. 3 iii. The ability for airports and airlines to refer to binding and independent arbitration for any dispute over the terms and conditions on which aeronautical services are provided by the airport, in the event that commercial negotiations fail. This binding arbitration would be carried out by an independent party. This proposal could be implemented through the deemed declaration of aeronautical services at major airports. Under deemed declaration, the ACCC would be the relevant arbitrator. iv. A more equitable treatment and allocation of aeronautical and non- aeronautical services, costs and revenues to reflect the downside risks being borne by airlines and excessive pricing behaviour impacting the consumer. Specific suggestions have been set out in each party’s individual submission. Approaches could include an expanded definition of aeronautical services or application of a new non-aeronautical revenue allocation methodology. 4 ATTACHMENT
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regulamento (Ue) N
    11.2.2012 PT Jornal Oficial da União Europeia L 39/1 II (Atos não legislativos) REGULAMENTOS o REGULAMENTO (UE) N. 100/2012 DA COMISSÃO de 3 de fevereiro de 2012 o que altera o Regulamento (CE) n. 748/2009, relativo à lista de operadores de aeronaves que realizaram uma das atividades de aviação enumeradas no anexo I da Diretiva 2003/87/CE em ou após 1 de janeiro de 2006, inclusive, com indicação do Estado-Membro responsável em relação a cada operador de aeronave, tendo igualmente em conta a expansão do regime de comércio de licenças de emissão da União aos países EEE-EFTA (Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE) A COMISSÃO EUROPEIA, 2003/87/CE e é independente da inclusão na lista de operadores de aeronaves estabelecida pela Comissão por o o força do artigo 18. -A, n. 3, da diretiva. Tendo em conta o Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia, (5) A Diretiva 2008/101/CE foi incorporada no Acordo so­ bre o Espaço Económico Europeu pela Decisão o Tendo em conta a Diretiva 2003/87/CE do Parlamento Europeu n. 6/2011 do Comité Misto do EEE, de 1 de abril de e do Conselho, de 13 de Outubro de 2003, relativa à criação de 2011, que altera o anexo XX (Ambiente) do Acordo um regime de comércio de licenças de emissão de gases com EEE ( 4). efeito de estufa na Comunidade e que altera a Diretiva 96/61/CE o o do Conselho ( 1), nomeadamente o artigo 18. -A, n. 3, alínea a), (6) A extensão das disposições do regime de comércio de licenças de emissão da União, no setor da aviação, aos Considerando o seguinte: países EEE-EFTA implica que os critérios fixados nos o o termos do artigo 18.
    [Show full text]
  • Rozporządzenia
    6.2.2014 PL Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej L 37/1 II (Akty o charakterze nieustawodawczym) ROZPORZĄDZENIA ROZPORZĄDZENIE KOMISJI (UE) NR 100/2014 z dnia 5 lutego 2014 r. zmieniające rozporządzenie (WE) nr 748/2009 w sprawie wykazu operatorów statków powietrznych, którzy wykonywali działalność lotniczą wymienioną w załączniku I do dyrektywy 2003/87/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady poczynając od dnia 1 stycznia 2006 r. ze wskazaniem administrującego państwa członkowskiego dla każdego operatora statków powietrznych (Tekst mający znaczenie dla EOG) KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA, (3) Celem tego wykazu jest zmniejszenie obciążenia admi­ nistracyjnego ponoszonego przez operatorów statków powietrznych poprzez udostępnienie informacji o tym, które z państw członkowskich jest regulatorem danego uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej, operatora statków powietrznych. (4) Objęcie operatora statków powietrznych unijnym uwzględniając dyrektywę 2003/87/WE Parlamentu Europej­ systemem handlu uprawnieniami do emisji gazów skiego i Rady z dnia 13 października 2003 r. ustanawiającą cieplarnianych uzależnione jest od wykonywania działal­ system handlu przydziałami emisji gazów cieplarnianych we ności lotniczej wymienionej w załączniku I do dyrektywy Wspólnocie oraz zmieniającą dyrektywę Rady 96/61/WE ( 1), 2003/87/WE, nie jest natomiast uzależnione od umiesz­ w szczególności jej art. 18a ust. 3 lit. b), czenia danego operatora w wykazie operatorów statków powietrznych ustanowionym przez Komisję na podstawie art. 18a ust. 3 wspomnianej dyrektywy.
    [Show full text]
  • RASG-PA ESC/29 — WP/04 14/11/17 Twenty
    RASG‐PA ESC/29 — WP/04 14/11/17 Twenty ‐ Ninth Regional Aviation Safety Group — Pan America Executive Steering Committee Meeting (RASG‐PA ESC/29) ICAO NACC Regional Office, Mexico City, Mexico, 29‐30 November 2017 Agenda Item 3: Items/Briefings of interest to the RASG‐PA ESC PROPOSAL TO AMEND ICAO FLIGHT DATA ANALYSIS PROGRAMME (FDAP) RECOMMENDATION AND STANDARD TO EXPAND AEROPLANES´ WEIGHT THRESHOLD (Presented by Flight Safety Foundation and supported by Airbus, ATR, Embraer, IATA, Brazil ANAC, ICAO SAM Office, and SRVSOP) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Flight Data Analysis Program (FDAP) working group comprised by representatives of Airbus, ATR, Embraer, IATA, Brazil ANAC, ICAO SAM Office, and SRVSOP, is in the process of preparing a proposal to expand the number of functional flight data analysis programs. It is anticipated that a greater number of Flight Data Analysis Programs will lead to significantly greater safety levels through analysis of critical event sets and incidents. Action: The FDAP working group is requesting support for greater implementation of FDAP/FDMP throughout the Pan American Regions and consideration of new ICAO standards through the actions outlined in Section 4 of this working paper. Strategic Safety Objectives: References: Annex 6 ‐ Operation of Aircraft, Part 1 sections as mentioned in this working paper RASG‐PA ESC/28 ‐ WP/09 presented at the ICAO SAM Regional Office, 4 to 5 May 2017. 1. Introduction 1.1 Flight Data Recorders have long been used as one of the most important tools for accident investigations such that the term “black box” and its recovery is well known beyond the aviation industry.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Transportation Federal
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ORDER TRANSPORTATION JO 7340.2E FEDERAL AVIATION Effective Date: ADMINISTRATION July 24, 2014 Air Traffic Organization Policy Subject: Contractions Includes Change 1 dated 11/13/14 https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/CNT/3-3.HTM A 3- Company Country Telephony Ltr AAA AVICON AVIATION CONSULTANTS & AGENTS PAKISTAN AAB ABELAG AVIATION BELGIUM ABG AAC ARMY AIR CORPS UNITED KINGDOM ARMYAIR AAD MANN AIR LTD (T/A AMBASSADOR) UNITED KINGDOM AMBASSADOR AAE EXPRESS AIR, INC. (PHOENIX, AZ) UNITED STATES ARIZONA AAF AIGLE AZUR FRANCE AIGLE AZUR AAG ATLANTIC FLIGHT TRAINING LTD. UNITED KINGDOM ATLANTIC AAH AEKO KULA, INC D/B/A ALOHA AIR CARGO (HONOLULU, UNITED STATES ALOHA HI) AAI AIR AURORA, INC. (SUGAR GROVE, IL) UNITED STATES BOREALIS AAJ ALFA AIRLINES CO., LTD SUDAN ALFA SUDAN AAK ALASKA ISLAND AIR, INC. (ANCHORAGE, AK) UNITED STATES ALASKA ISLAND AAL AMERICAN AIRLINES INC. UNITED STATES AMERICAN AAM AIM AIR REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AIM AIR AAN AMSTERDAM AIRLINES B.V. NETHERLANDS AMSTEL AAO ADMINISTRACION AERONAUTICA INTERNACIONAL, S.A. MEXICO AEROINTER DE C.V. AAP ARABASCO AIR SERVICES SAUDI ARABIA ARABASCO AAQ ASIA ATLANTIC AIRLINES CO., LTD THAILAND ASIA ATLANTIC AAR ASIANA AIRLINES REPUBLIC OF KOREA ASIANA AAS ASKARI AVIATION (PVT) LTD PAKISTAN AL-AAS AAT AIR CENTRAL ASIA KYRGYZSTAN AAU AEROPA S.R.L. ITALY AAV ASTRO AIR INTERNATIONAL, INC. PHILIPPINES ASTRO-PHIL AAW AFRICAN AIRLINES CORPORATION LIBYA AFRIQIYAH AAX ADVANCE AVIATION CO., LTD THAILAND ADVANCE AVIATION AAY ALLEGIANT AIR, INC. (FRESNO, CA) UNITED STATES ALLEGIANT AAZ AEOLUS AIR LIMITED GAMBIA AEOLUS ABA AERO-BETA GMBH & CO., STUTTGART GERMANY AEROBETA ABB AFRICAN BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATIONS DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF AFRICAN BUSINESS THE CONGO ABC ABC WORLD AIRWAYS GUIDE ABD AIR ATLANTA ICELANDIC ICELAND ATLANTA ABE ABAN AIR IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC ABAN OF) ABF SCANWINGS OY, FINLAND FINLAND SKYWINGS ABG ABAKAN-AVIA RUSSIAN FEDERATION ABAKAN-AVIA ABH HOKURIKU-KOUKUU CO., LTD JAPAN ABI ALBA-AIR AVIACION, S.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Regulated Regular Public Transport Air Routes in Western Australia Final Public Report 2015 MINISTER’S FOREWORD
    Department of Transport Review of Regulated Regular Public Transport Air Routes in Western Australia Final Public Report 2015 MINISTER’S FOREWORD Aviation services are important for Western Australia’s social and economic wellbeing. The State Government’s key objective is to ensure the community has Regular Public Transport (RPT) intrastate air services that are safe, affordable, efficient and effective. The inaugural Western Australian State Aviation Strategy, endorsed by the State Government in February 2015, supports the vision to maintain and develop quality air services that are essential to regional and remote communities in WA (DoT, 2015). The State Government’s position is to take a months, receiving a total of 43 submissions from light‑handed approach to the regulation of air various stakeholder groups, including airlines, routes where feasible. Less regulation of air routes local governments, state government agencies, fosters opportunities for competition that may the resource industry, and peak tourism and result in reduced airfares, increased diversity in business bodies, as well as from members of air services and more choice for travellers, as well the general public. In addition, there has been as reducing ‘red tape’. However, the State has significant engagement with stakeholders and an obligation to balance this perspective with the communities through ongoing regional Aviation need to maintain marginal air services for regional Community Consultation Group meetings. and remote towns within WA. The submissions and consultations have This Final Report on intrastate services builds assisted the State Government to form a final upon the position paper released for public recommendation for the future of each of the eight comment as part of the Review of Regulated reviewed routes.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Volatility Steadies the Climb
    WORLD AIRLINER CENSUS Global volatility steadies the climb Cirium Fleet Forecast’s latest outlook sees heady growth settling down to trend levels, with economic slowdown, rising oil prices and production rate challenges as factors Narrowbodies including A321neo will dominate deliveries over 2019-2038 Airbus DAN THISDELL & CHRIS SEYMOUR LONDON commercial jets and turboprops across most spiking above $100/barrel in mid-2014, the sectors has come down from a run of heady Brent Crude benchmark declined rapidly to a nybody who has been watching growth years, slowdown in this context should January 2016 low in the mid-$30s; the subse- the news for the past year cannot be read as a return to longer-term averages. In quent upturn peaked in the $80s a year ago. have missed some recurring head- other words, in commercial aviation, slow- Following a long dip during the second half Alines. In no particular order: US- down is still a long way from downturn. of 2018, oil has this year recovered to the China trade war, potential US-Iran hot war, And, Cirium observes, “a slowdown in high-$60s prevailing in July. US-Mexico trade tension, US-Europe trade growth rates should not be a surprise”. Eco- tension, interest rates rising, Chinese growth nomic indicators are showing “consistent de- RECESSION WORRIES stumbling, Europe facing populist backlash, cline” in all major regions, and the World What comes next is anybody’s guess, but it is longest economic recovery in history, US- Trade Organization’s global trade outlook is at worth noting that the sharp drop in prices that Canada commerce friction, bond and equity its weakest since 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • 27.4.2011 Journal Officiel De L'union Européenne L 107/3
    27.4.2011 FR Journal officiel de l’Union européenne L 107/3 ANNEXE Liste des exploitants d'aéronefs ayant exercé une activité aérienne visée à l’annexe I de la directive 2003/87/CE à compter du 1 er janvier 2006 et précisant l’État membre de l'EEE responsable de chaque exploitant d’aéronefs BELGIQUE SCRR Numéro Nom de l’exploitant État de l'exploitant d'identification 123 Abelag Aviation BELGIQUE 7649 AIRBORNE EXPRESS ÉTATS-UNIS 33612 ALLIED AIR LIMITED NIGERIA 30020 AVIASTAR-TU CO. RUSSIE 31416 AVIA TRAFFIC COMPANY RUSSIE 908 BRUSSELS AIRLINES BELGIQUE 25996 CAIRO AVIATION ÉGYPTE 4369 CAL CARGO AIRLINES ISRAËL 29517 CAPITAL AVTN SRVCS PAYS-BAS 36867 CLASSIC JET HERITAGE ROYAUME-UNI 36515 CONTRAIL AVIATION ÉTATS-UNIS f11336 CORPORATE WINGS LLC ÉTATS-UNIS 32909 CRESAIR INC ÉTATS-UNIS 985 EAT BELGIQUE 32432 EGYPTAIR CARGO ÉGYPTE 36012 ENJOY AIR SUISSE f11102 FedEx Express Corporate Aviation ÉTATS-UNIS f11256 Flying Partners CVBA BELGIQUE 13457 Flying Service N.V. BELGIQUE 32486 FAYARD ENTERPRISES ÉTATS-UNIS 24578 GAFI GENERAL AVIAT SUISSE 32737 GREAT ALLIANCE WORLD ROYAUME-UNI 29980 HAINAN AIRLINES (2) CHINE 23700 HEWA BORA AIRWAYS CONGO 28582 INTER-WETALL SUISSE 9542 INTL PAPER CY ÉTATS-UNIS 27709 KALITTA AIR ÉTATS-UNIS 28087 LAS VEGAS CHARTER ÉTATS-UNIS 32303 MASTER TOP LINHAS BRÉSIL 37066 MERIDIAN (AIRWAYS) BELGIQUE 1084 MIL BELGIUM BELGIQUE 31565 MONTE CARLO AVTN BELGIQUE 26688 NEWELL RUBBERMAID ÉTATS-UNIS f11805 NUCOR CORP ÉTATS-UNIS 31207 N604FJ LLC ÉTATS-UNIS f11462 N907WS AVIATION LLC ÉTATS-UNIS f10341 OfficeMax Inc ÉTATS-UNIS 36214
    [Show full text]
  • Method of Working Plan
    METHOD OF WORKING PLAN Perth Airport: Weekly Runway Maintenance - 2020 Document ID: MOWP YPPH 001-20 Version Number: 2 Approval Date: 14 February 2020 Commencement Date: 3rd January 2020 Completion Date: 31st December 2020 MOWP Expiry Date: 31st December 2020 MOWP 001 -20 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Version Table of Contents ii SECTION 2 WORKS INFORMATION ...................................................................................4 2.1 Scope of works ................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Works Timing ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Delayed Flights ................................................................................................................................... 5 SECTION 3 RESTRICTIONS TO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ..............................................6 3.1 Restrictions by Stage ......................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 NOTAMS............................................................................................................................................. 7 3.3 Aircraft Emergencies .......................................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Airport Emergencies ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Compliance List of Aircraft Operators Specifying the Administering Member State for Each Aircraft Operator – June 2014
    Prior compliance list of aircraft operators specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator – June 2014 Inclusion in the prior compliance list allows aircraft operators to know which Member State will most likely be attributed to them as their administering Member State so they can get in contact with the competent authority of that Member State to discuss the requirements and the next steps. Due to a number of reasons, and especially because a number of aircraft operators use services of management companies, some of those operators have not been identified in the latest update of the EEA- wide list of aircraft operators adopted on 5 February 2014. The present version of the prior compliance list includes those aircraft operators, which have submitted their fleet lists between December 2013 and January 2014. BELGIUM CRCO Identification no. Operator Name State of the Operator 31102 ACT AIRLINES TURKEY 7649 AIRBORNE EXPRESS UNITED STATES 33612 ALLIED AIR LIMITED NIGERIA 29424 ASTRAL AVIATION LTD KENYA 31416 AVIA TRAFFIC COMPANY TAJIKISTAN 30020 AVIASTAR-TU CO. RUSSIAN FEDERATION 40259 BRAVO CARGO UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 908 BRUSSELS AIRLINES BELGIUM 25996 CAIRO AVIATION EGYPT 4369 CAL CARGO AIRLINES ISRAEL 29517 CAPITAL AVTN SRVCS NETHERLANDS 39758 CHALLENGER AERO PHILIPPINES f11336 CORPORATE WINGS LLC UNITED STATES 32909 CRESAIR INC UNITED STATES 32432 EGYPTAIR CARGO EGYPT f12977 EXCELLENT INVESTMENT UNITED STATES LLC 32486 FAYARD ENTERPRISES UNITED STATES f11102 FedEx Express Corporate UNITED STATES Aviation 13457 Flying
    [Show full text]
  • AIRLINES Monthly
    AIRLINES monthly OTP APRIL 2018 Contents GLOBAL AIRLINES GLOBAL RANKING Top and bottom Regional airlines Latin American EMEA ASPAC North America and Caribbean Notes: % On-Time is percentage of flights that depart or Update: Status coverage as of April 2018 will only be based arrive within 15 minutes of schedule. on actual gate times rather than estimated times. This may Source: OAG flightview. Any reuse, publication or distribution of result in some airlines/airports being excluded from this report data must be attributed to OAG flightview. report. Global OTP rankings are assigned to all airlines/ Global OTP rankings are assigned to all Airports airports where OAG has status coverage for at least 80% where OAG has status coverage for at least 80% of the of scheduled flights. If you would like to review your flight scheduled flights. status feed with OAG please [email protected] AIRLINE MONTHLY OTP – APRIL 2018 Global airlines – top and bottom BOTTOM AIRLINE ON-TIME TOP AIRLINE ON-TIME FLIGHTS On-time performance On-time performance FLIGHTS Airline Arrivals Rank Flights Rank Airline Arrivals Rank Flights Rank TW T'way Air 99.5% 1 3,419 138 3H Air Inuit 39.2% 153 1,460 212 HX Hong Kong Airlines 95.8% 2 3,144 141 SF Tassili Airlines 41.9% 152 424 291 SATA International-Azores JH Fuji Dream Airlines 95.1% 3 2,122 173 S4 47.0% 151 625 268 Airlines S.A. PM Canaryfly 94.0% 4 1,072 232 EE Regional Jet 52.2% 150 70 367 BT Air Baltic Corporation 92.9% 5 4,624 117 VC ViaAir 53.4% 149 297 319 RC Atlantic Airways Faroe Islands 92.1% 6 221 333 TP TAP Air Portugal 53.8% 148 11,263 59 HR Hahn Air 91.7% 7 14 377 Z2 Philippines AirAsia Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Die Folgende Liste Zeigt Alle Fluggesellschaften, Die Über Den Flugvergleich Von Verivox Buchbar Sein Können
    Die folgende Liste zeigt alle Fluggesellschaften, die über den Flugvergleich von Verivox buchbar sein können. Aufgrund von laufenden Updates einzelner Tarife, technischen Problemen oder eingeschränkten Verfügbarkeiten kann es vorkommen, dass einzelne Airlines oder Tarife nicht berechnet oder angezeigt werden können. 1 Adria Airways 2 Aegean Airlines 3 Aer Arann 4 Aer Lingus 5 Aeroflot 6 Aerolan 7 Aerolíneas Argentinas 8 Aeroméxico 9 Air Algérie 10 Air Astana 11 Air Austral 12 Air Baltic 13 Air Berlin 14 Air Botswana 15 Air Canada 16 Air Caraibes 17 Air China 18 Air Corsica 19 Air Dolomiti 20 Air Europa 21 Air France 22 Air Guinee Express 23 Air India 24 Air Jamaica 25 Air Madagascar 26 Air Malta 27 Air Mauritius 28 Air Moldova 29 Air Namibia 30 Air New Zealand 31 Air One 32 Air Serbia 33 Air Transat 34 Air Asia 35 Alaska Airlines 36 Alitalia 37 All Nippon Airways 38 American Airlines 39 Arkefly 40 Arkia Israel Airlines 41 Asiana Airlines 42 Atlasglobal 43 Austrian Airlines 44 Avianca 45 B&H Airlines 46 Bahamasair 47 Bangkok Airways 48 Belair Airlines 49 Belavia Belarusian Airlines 50 Binter Canarias 51 Blue1 52 British Airways 53 British Midland International 54 Brussels Airlines 55 Bulgaria Air 56 Caribbean Airlines 57 Carpatair 58 Cathay Pacific 59 China Airlines 60 China Eastern 61 China Southern Airlines 62 Cimber Sterling 63 Condor 64 Continental Airlines 65 Corsair International 66 Croatia Airlines 67 Cubana de Aviacion 68 Cyprus Airways 69 Czech Airlines 70 Darwin Airline 71 Delta Airlines 72 Dragonair 73 EasyJet 74 EgyptAir 75
    [Show full text]
  • Amount Committed Funding Allocated So Far 2019/20 2020/21 TOTAL
    Amount Committed Funding allocated so far 2019/20 2020/21 TOTAL Eligibility requirements (if any) Allocated Paid amount Remaining funds Notes Australian Airline Financial Relief Package $437 million $278 million $715 The scheme is open to all organisations with an Air Operator’s $504.9 million $292.3 million $210.1 million $400 million waiver of Airservices (AAFRP) million Certificate authorising: *at 2 June 2020 *total committed less total Australia (Airservices) charges (paid unallocated in advance to Airservices Australia to Announced on 18 March. The purpose of domestic scheduled RPT services, enable fees to be waived and the grant program is to assist the domestic domestic commercial charter operations, services to continue), airline industry in response to the economic aerial agriculture, aerial work and flight training, or $173 million value to industry of pressures created by the impact of COVID-19 contracted aeromedical service. domestic aviation security charges by reducing operational cost pressures to $20 million value to industry for Organisations must also: improve the ability to maintain services. The enhanced regional security screening have an Australian Business Number (ABN) program will end on 30 September 2020. costs, be registered for the purposes of GST $46 million infrastructure support Eligible operators who have applied and have an account with an Australian financial institution for regional airport operators to been approved funding under the program be one of the following entity types: implement enhanced regional are provided at Attachment A. o a company incorporated in Australia aviation security requirements, and o a company incorporated by guarantee $46 million value to industry of o Figures as at 2 June 2020.
    [Show full text]